Quid, religious people have harmed others in the name of their religions, right? You might say that harmful actions have been the consequence of religious belief, right?
I think your view is far too myopic. Because our culture allows people to believe things that are completely free of logic, people are getting harmed every day.
Because people believe stupid things others get harmed. Certain religion aren't the only stupid ideas out there. Libertarians do plenty of harm.
But doesn't religion support the idea that you can believe whatever you want without evidence thereby supporting stupid ideas?
That depends entirely on the religion. Subjective views on reality are what allow for stupid decisions. This is not unique to religion.
Seriously. Demonstrate how my deism is harming someone.
They don't give a shit because they're allowed to get away with it. It's only useless because people can easily hide behind the sanctity of subjective religious experience.
I agree they shouldn't be allowed to if it hurts other people.
And you really keep sidestepping this. Do you, or do you not, believe religion is acceptable if it doesn't hurt anyone and can be amended when further evidence to the opposite of said beliefs shows up? Because no one here is defending Westboro Baptist.
Such a theoretical religion yes. The concept of "religion" is so broad that I think it would be impossible to find an objection that applies to every one.
In fact I have never seen a definition of "religion" as a whole that actually works. I don't think there is one. It's something that you just Know when you see it. And sometimes not even then.
However, I think it is perfectly possible to argue against specific religions or even groups of religions that share certain traits in common.
And no one is disputing there are individual religions that are bad. Some, however, are arguing that all are bad.
Because our culture allows people to believe things that are completely free of logic, people are getting harmed every day.
And I think your view is far too myopic, because not all of these beliefs free of logic are predicated on religion and fighting religion is not only not necessarily the best way to fight any of them, but not a way to fight some of them at all.
But it is my argument that, as I've stated before, religion and spirituality have poisoned humanity by letting people believe things about my reality and your reality without evidence or accountability.
So what are you suggesting? Reboot? If humanity has been poisoned, the poison is obviously inside us. Somehow. Inside all of us. The poison. The poisonous poison. The vile, poisonous, poison of religious poisoning. Which has poisoned us, by poisoning humanity. And is the reason behind all unfounded beliefs. Poisonously.
I'm not suggesting anything. I wish there was something I could feasibly do about it. Vastly more eloquent and intelligent people than me argue for every person in the world to drop their backwards traditions and beliefs knowing full well it's not going to happen, but hoping that, eventually, it might. Religion has been gradually receding in the face of scientific understanding, and it's my hope that one day, it will all be gone. I have no delusions about this happening in my life time or anywhere near it, but I simply hope that, some day, there won't be any more areas of culturally permited and expected cognitive dissonance.
You "moderacy" serves as a cushion for them. Because there are "moderate" Christians, we cannot appropriately judge the radical Christians. Because there are "moderate" Muslims, we cannot appropriately judge the radical Muslims. Because our society allows you to maintain your backwards beliefs without really calling it out for exactly what it is, we cannot name the WBC for what they are. They aren't really radical, they are just more devoted and more strict. There is nothing more out-of-bounds about their theology. In fact, I'd suggest that they are more closely and accurately following the bible and its tenets than you. You only cede to reality and secular society because you have to, not because it's a feature of your religion.
Says who? You? I know I sure don't, and neither do most religious people.
Well, unless by "exactly what it is" you mean the whole "all religious people are mentally deficient" thing. Because yeah, we're gonna call you dicks if you do that. But if you can't find a way to condemn the Westboro Baptist Church or Islamic suicide bombers without going there, that's your fucking problem, not mine.
I'm not suggesting anything. I wish there was something I could feasibly do about it. Vastly more eloquent and intelligent people than me argue for every person in the world to drop their backwards traditions and beliefs knowing full well it's not going to happen, but hoping that, eventually, it might. Religion has been gradually receding in the face of scientific understanding, and it's my hope that one day, it will all be gone. I have no delusions about this happening in my life time or anywhere near it, but I simply hope that, some day, there won't be any more areas of culturally permited and expected cognitive dissonance.
So you wanted to make a whining thread?
Edit: I mean, let's get this straight. Your argument is that some religions suck and, because of this, anyone who is religious sucks and it's their fault that there are crappy religions.
Quid, religious people have harmed others in the name of their religions, right? You might say that harmful actions have been the consequence of religious belief, right?
I think your view is far too myopic. Because our culture allows people to believe things that are completely free of logic, people are getting harmed every day.
Because people believe stupid things others get harmed. Certain religion aren't the only stupid ideas out there. Libertarians do plenty of harm.
But doesn't religion support the idea that you can believe whatever you want without evidence thereby supporting stupid ideas?
That depends entirely on the religion. Subjective views on reality are what allow for stupid decisions. This is not unique to religion.
Seriously. Demonstrate how my deism is harming someone.
Jesus Christ, Quid.
Alright. There are consequences to beliefs, right? If I acost you about your spiritual beliefs, the expectation is that we can come to no conclusion because there is no conclusion to come to. This is wrong, but this is what our culture accepts and expects, so this is what happens. You personally are not necessarily hurting anybody, but that you can essentially throw in the towel and say, "Well, that's just what I believe," is the inherent problem of religions. This insulates the fanatics from anything but the least practical of reactionary policies towards their behavior.
Let me put it this way: if somebody's deism drives them to drive a bus through a mall, mowing down dozens of people, and blowing it with a pipe bomb killing dozens more, we're not allowed to say they did this because of their deism even if that's the only explanation they leave available. They did it because they were fucked up, right? That's all.
So why is it that we can safely assume that every suicide bomber in the big desert is going to be devoutly religious?
I'm not suggesting anything. I wish there was something I could feasibly do about it. Vastly more eloquent and intelligent people than me argue for every person in the world to drop their backwards traditions and beliefs knowing full well it's not going to happen, but hoping that, eventually, it might. Religion has been gradually receding in the face of scientific understanding, and it's my hope that one day, it will all be gone. I have no delusions about this happening in my life time or anywhere near it, but I simply hope that, some day, there won't be any more areas of culturally permited and expected cognitive dissonance.
So you wanted to make a whining thread?
I got really tired of people bitching about "militant" atheists and wanted to make a case.
Quid, religious people have harmed others in the name of their religions, right? You might say that harmful actions have been the consequence of religious belief, right?
I think your view is far too myopic. Because our culture allows people to believe things that are completely free of logic, people are getting harmed every day.
Because people believe stupid things others get harmed. Certain religion aren't the only stupid ideas out there. Libertarians do plenty of harm.
But doesn't religion support the idea that you can believe whatever you want without evidence thereby supporting stupid ideas?
That depends entirely on the religion. Subjective views on reality are what allow for stupid decisions. This is not unique to religion.
Seriously. Demonstrate how my deism is harming someone.
Jesus Christ, Quid.
Alright. There are consequences to beliefs, right? If I acost you about your spiritual beliefs, the expectation is that we can come to no conclusion because there is no conclusion to come to. This is wrong, but this is what our culture accepts and expects, so this is what happens. You personally are not necessarily hurting anybody, but that you can essentially throw in the towel and say, "Well, that's just what I believe," is the inherent problem of religions. This insulates the fanatics from anything but the least practical of reactionary policies towards their behavior.
Let me put it this way: if somebody's deism drives them to drive a bus through a mall, mowing down dozens of people, and blowing it with a pipe bomb killing dozens more, we're not allowed to say they did this because of their deism even if that's the only explanation they leave available. They did it because they were fucked up, right? That's all.
So why is it that we can safely assume that every suicide bomber in the big desert is going to be devoutly religious?
You realize that I could replace "deism" with "atheism" in the bolded part and it would be logically equivalent? If the only explanation available is atheism, then it must be atheism!
Hippie, you should have made a case against a specific type of religion. There is no way to argue against all religions simultaneously because ALL religions share no traits at all that you can argue against.
Make a thread about how Christianity, especially as it is practiced today, is fucking dumb. Then we'll have something to talk about. As it is this is pointless.
I am an athiest, and everyone that I know is aware of this fact and I have no reason to stand on a soap box to them (or anyone else I meet for that matter) about how I don't believe in God (even though that's kinda what I'm doing now, but you all don't know me :P). I wouldn't want a Christian to do that to me, so I don't engage in the practice. Acknowledging it's fundamental purpose in human culture, which is providing a set of ideals to live by in hope that a life after death is present and that this life is not inherently meaningless (a statement which carries with it it's own debate), I still refuse to subscribe to religious belief.
This is a fact that everyone in this debate would do well to remember (not to point fingers). I simply cannot make myself believe in the supernatural doctorine and laws that religion offers. It flies in the face of logic and falsifiability. I am not saying that in a universe of infinity, the possibility of a "deity" of some kind is impossible, but so far, that fact is not proven so I will wait for proof. Books written about such things do not constitute truth or fact. To me they are fiction. But to say to me that God exists because we can't prove he doesn't is asinine and anyone with any sense can see why.
My main beef with religion is that you must lay aside at least some rational skepticism in order to embrace the tenets of any religious belief system. This lack of skepticism carries over into matters which really have nothing at all do with a particular religion, like say, the running of a government. Within your own religious community you are free to censor your own, but your beliefs and the propensity to push these beliefs (often times violently) is unjustifiable and evil.
I got really tired of people bitching about "militant" atheists and wanted to make a case.
By being a dick to people who aren't hurting anyone?
Clearly to demonstrate not all religious people are crazy dicks I should scream at atheists my belief in their probably being a god maybe.
It's gone a different direction than I intended, but am I really being a dick by demanding a higher standard of beliefs on a damned debate forum?
You're being a dick when you blame people who are not dicks and religious for being the reason dicks who use religion to justify themselves exist. Religion isn't bad. Crazy, unprovable ideas aren't bad. Only when ideas hurt people are they bad. And unless you live your life by cold, hard logic you're not some innocent subjected to the whims of insanity either.
So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right?
Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it?
There can only be one truth.
This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing.
This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned.
So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right?
Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it?
There can only be one truth.
This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing.
This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned.
That is one of the many problems with that brand of Christianity yes.
Thing is you can't say that is also true of every religion so you don't get to use that argument against them all. Hence an example in why arguing against them all is pointless.
So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right?
Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it?
There can only be one truth.
This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing.
This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned.
Not every religions holds that there can only be one truth. So, while yes some religions can inherently cause harm to others, this is not true of all religions.
I really wish everyone would stop assuming every religious belief = convert people to Jesus or die!
No no no no no no no. "Moderates" are culpable because they provide the room for interpretation in their attempt to cede to secular society. If a moderate can interpret or ignore passages about stoning nonbelievers to death but still adhere to tenets about love and somesuch stuff, then a fanatic can get away with being correct when they take those stoning passages literally. That's the problem. The moderates don't hold fanatics up to a standard of rigorous examination because otherwise they'd be apostates themselves.
So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right?
Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it?
There can only be one truth.
This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing.
This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned.
Not every religions holds that there can only be one truth. So, while yes some religions can inherently cause harm to others, this is not true of all religions.
I really wish everyone would stop assuming every religious belief = convert people to Jesus or die!
I know at least a few Christians who believe that salvation is for everyone regardless of belief or disbelief in Jesus or God or whatever. On the other hand, I've had a few Christians condescend to me by essentially implying "I'm going to heaven, you're going to hell, neener neener neener" (indeed, very fucking Christ-like of them). Again, this is one of those things that depends on the beliefs of the individual religious person.
So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right?
Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it?
There can only be one truth.
This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing.
This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned.
Not every religions holds that there can only be one truth. So, while yes some religions can inherently cause harm to others, this is not true of all religions.
I really wish everyone would stop assuming every religious belief = convert people to Jesus or die!
I know at least a few Christians who believe that salvation is for everyone regardless of belief or disbelief in Jesus or God or whatever. On the other hand, I've had a few Christians condescend to me by essentially implying "I'm going to heaven, you're going to hell, neener neener neener" (indeed, very fucking Christ-like of them). Again, this is one of those things that depends on the beliefs of the individual religious person.
Daaaaaamn. They really are working "off the book" as it were. Why even bother calling yourself Christian at that point?
Crazy.
Edit: Well... I guess they could be using the corrupted Greek root for Christos (Savior) from which Christians take their name. So they aren't really followers of the teachings of one Yeshua of Nazerith but rather of a generic "Savior" figure who has nothing to do with the New Testament.
So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right?
Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it?
There can only be one truth.
This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing.
This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned.
That is one of the many problems with that brand of Christianity yes.
Thing is you can't say that is also true of every religion so you don't get to use that argument against them all. Hence an example in why arguing against them all is pointless.
Map comparing Abrahamic religions to the Dharmic and Taoic religions.
I don't care that there are tiny little religions that don't necessarily make unverifiable universal claims. They're not very common. What we have here, evinced by this map, is a very serious problem.
No no no no no no no. "Moderates" are culpable because they provide the room for interpretation in their attempt to cede to secular society. If a moderate can interpret or ignore passages about stoning nonbelievers to death but still adhere to tenets about love and somesuch stuff, then a fanatic can get away with being correct when they take those stoning passages literally. That's the problem. The moderates don't hold fanatics up to a standard of rigorous examination because otherwise they'd be apostates themselves.
I'm all for calling extremists dumbasses and holding them culpable for their actions regardless of their beliefs. In fact, I'd any religious person not willing to hold extremists culpable for their actions are, essentially, extremists themselves and not moderates. You seem to have an odd idea of what a moderate is and then applying it to anyone that describes themselves as moderate.
So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right?
Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it?
There can only be one truth.
This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing.
This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned.
Not every religions holds that there can only be one truth. So, while yes some religions can inherently cause harm to others, this is not true of all religions.
I really wish everyone would stop assuming every religious belief = convert people to Jesus or die!
I know at least a few Christians who believe that salvation is for everyone regardless of belief or disbelief in Jesus or God or whatever. On the other hand, I've had a few Christians condescend to me by essentially implying "I'm going to heaven, you're going to hell, neener neener neener" (indeed, very fucking Christ-like of them). Again, this is one of those things that depends on the beliefs of the individual religious person.
Daaaaaamn. They really are working "off the book" as it were. Why even bother calling yourself Christian at that point?
Crazy.
Not really. That's a pretty basic idea presented in many parts of the Christian bible. It may be contradicted at points, but it's by far the most common feature. Believe in God/Jesus or go to hell. End of story.
Map comparing Abrahamic religions to the Dharmic and Taoic religions.
I don't care that there are tiny little religions that don't necessarily make unverifiable universal claims. They're not very common. What we have here, evinced by this map, is a very serious problem.
1. No one lives their life on cold hard logic. Stop bitching about unverifiable claims. Unless a claim is hurting someone it is not bad.
2. So, what, now we just don't count Eastern religions in the word religion?
No no no no no no no. "Moderates" are culpable because they provide the room for interpretation in their attempt to cede to secular society. If a moderate can interpret or ignore passages about stoning nonbelievers to death but still adhere to tenets about love and somesuch stuff, then a fanatic can get away with being correct when they take those stoning passages literally. That's the problem. The moderates don't hold fanatics up to a standard of rigorous examination because otherwise they'd be apostates themselves.
I'm all for calling extremists dumbasses and holding them culpable for their actions regardless of their beliefs. In fact, I'd any religious person not willing to hold extremists culpable for their actions are, essentially, extremists themselves and not moderates. You seem to have an odd idea of what a moderate is and then applying it to anyone that describes themselves as moderate.
All a moderate can really say without calling their own faith into question is that a fanatic's interpretation is wrong, and that's a dead end because there is no wrong interpretation of religion by its very nature.
So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right?
Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it?
There can only be one truth.
This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing.
This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned.
Not every religions holds that there can only be one truth. So, while yes some religions can inherently cause harm to others, this is not true of all religions.
I really wish everyone would stop assuming every religious belief = convert people to Jesus or die!
I know at least a few Christians who believe that salvation is for everyone regardless of belief or disbelief in Jesus or God or whatever. On the other hand, I've had a few Christians condescend to me by essentially implying "I'm going to heaven, you're going to hell, neener neener neener" (indeed, very fucking Christ-like of them). Again, this is one of those things that depends on the beliefs of the individual religious person.
Daaaaaamn. They really are working "off the book" as it were. Why even bother calling yourself Christian at that point?
Crazy.
Not really. That's a pretty basic idea presented in many parts of the Christian bible. It may be contradicted at points, but it's by far the most common feature. Believe in God/Jesus or go to hell. End of story.
No I meant the people he referred to that said salvation is for everyone regardless are the ones not reading their own damn book.
Map comparing Abrahamic religions to the Dharmic and Taoic religions.
I don't care that there are tiny little religions that don't necessarily make unverifiable universal claims. They're not very common. What we have here, evinced by this map, is a very serious problem.
1. No one lives their life on cold hard logic. Stop bitching about unverifiable claims. Unless a claim is hurting someone it is not bad.
2. So, what, now we just don't count Eastern religions in the word religion?
If you're making claims about universal reality (as religions necessarily do) you best as fuck be using verifiable claims. That's been my point from the start.
All a moderate can really say without calling their own faith into question is that a fanatic's interpretation is wrong, and that's a dead end because there is no wrong interpretation of religion by its very nature.
Yes there is. I fully accept my interpretation could be wrong. I'm only human after all.
You keep trying to fit "religion" under one specific group of ideas that have to apply to all of them. Stop.
So, some people have been saying here that a belief is fine as long as you don't impose it on others, right?
Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it?
There can only be one truth.
This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing.
This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned.
That is one of the many problems with that brand of Christianity yes.
Thing is you can't say that is also true of every religion so you don't get to use that argument against them all. Hence an example in why arguing against them all is pointless.
Map comparing Abrahamic religions to the Dharmic and Taoic religions.
I don't care that there are tiny little religions that don't necessarily make unverifiable universal claims. They're not very common. What we have here, evinced by this map, is a very serious problem.
So pick a group, or preferably a single subgroup, and make a thread about that specifically. Because as long as you are trying to make claims about "religion" as a whole all Quid has to do (and he is perfectly correct here) is find a single example of a religion to whom your objection does not apply.
If you're making claims about universal reality (as religions necessarily do) you best as fuck be using verifiable claims. That's been my point from the start.
Not until you demonstrate how they're bad if they don't hurt anyone. Because as I've said before, I have no problem with people claiming space clowns help determine their economic policy so long as said policy has, does, and continues to work without harming people. If a guy who thinks God resides in his glasses has directed him to and how to creates the cure for cancer then I'm fine with that.
If you're making claims about universal reality (as religions necessarily do) you best as fuck be using verifiable claims. That's been my point from the start.
Not until you demonstrate how they're bad if they don't hurt anyone. Because as I've said before, I have no problem with people claiming space clowns help determine their economic policy so long as said policy has, does, and continues to work without harming people. If a guy who thinks God resides in his glasses has directed him to and how to creates the cure for cancer then I'm fine with that.
You keep creating these hypotheticals. I'd challenge you to find one for each of the billions of people that have been harmed in the name of religion.
You keep creating these hypotheticals. I'd challenge you to find one for each of the billions of people that have been harmed in the name of religion.
People have been hurt for reasons other than and because of religion. People have been helped for reasons other than and because of religion. You're problem is with religion that hurts people. I'm sorry it's not an equal fucking scale but, as mentioned earlier, people throughout history would have been dicks whether or not they believed in a religion.
Quid on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
If at best, the belief in a higher power provides someone with peace of mind and a sense of community, and at worst, damages their credibility amongst those outside of their community, who condescend to think that their perspective is more 'true' or 'healthy', then it seems to me the good outweighs the bad.
It doesn't matter what a person believes in; belief in a higher, controlling power is just a part of your view of the world. Since no one can claim that their view is anymore accurate than someone else's, their view is just as good as yours.
At worst, that belief is used by the person to make other decisions and hold other beliefs. I'm not going to start citing examples of people using religion to justify horrible things, because it's not necessary. Just wanted to point that out.
I was referring solely to the person holding the belief. If they did something horrible which, according to their belief, was morally sound, then what they've done (for them) isn't so bad. Yes, it's horrible for someone else, but not for the believer. The problem then is that we've got one action that, from the perspective of one person is bad and from the perspective of another person is good.
I'll use the example of a man coming across a tribe of people who, according to their culture, consider it an unforgivable injustice to touch each others hands. Not knowing this, the man reaches out and shakes hands with one of them, and as a result of this is accused of being rude and is chased out of the tribe's camp. Without meaning to, he'd deeply offended all of them.
One thing about religion anyway is that you've got a whole lot of people who believe the same thing, and as a result of that, an action performed by one believer will be interpreted the way it was intended by another believer. Religions provide a set of rules, and without a definitive list of 'rights' and 'wrongs' (albeit generally open to interpretation) people are disorganized and free to justify things however they please.
In the example you've cited, the act of hand-touching was not itself immoral, though it had grave social implications. The man was not necessarily wrong, though a bit presumptive. He would have been morally wrong had he known about the custom and still chose to touch the villager's hands because of the emotional duress caused by a person purposefully violating one's sacred custom or what have you . Anyway, this is an example of a cultural norm making significant an action which would otherwise be morally insignificant. This is the only sense in which moral relativism holds any water.
If that same village had the custom that all visitors to the village had to violently rape a female prisoner or themselves face execution, that custom is still morally wrong regardless of the local beliefs.
Oh, and I'm religious and don't use it to justify harming anyone nor use it to justify much of anything. It does, however, make me feel kind of better. Therefore: Not all religion is bad.
Quid on
0
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
It really is the "believe/behave/worship this way or else you're going to hell" that has me so turned off of actual religious institutions.
I mean... Many many of the religions today are offshoots from the same thing, devoted to the same main text. For the most part, their values are similar, they follow the same rules/commandments, and should by all rights get along fine. But every little difference in the way they've chosen to follow these beliefs are magnified until they're totally different and at times at war with each other.
Maybe I'm being naive, but given the tenants of the original text they all believe is the word of God, shouldn't there be alot more unifying of belief and less division?
You keep creating these hypotheticals. I'd challenge you to find one for each of the billions of people that have been harmed in the name of religion.
People have been hurt for reasons other than and because of religion. People have been helped for reasons other than and because of religion. You're problem is with religion that hurts people. I'm sorry it's not an equal fucking scale but, as mentioned earlier, people throughout history would have been dicks whether or not they believed in a religion.
We cannot know to what extent that's true. However, care to grab some statistics on religiosity and violence?
Posts
Seriously. Demonstrate how my deism is harming someone.
I'm not suggesting anything. I wish there was something I could feasibly do about it. Vastly more eloquent and intelligent people than me argue for every person in the world to drop their backwards traditions and beliefs knowing full well it's not going to happen, but hoping that, eventually, it might. Religion has been gradually receding in the face of scientific understanding, and it's my hope that one day, it will all be gone. I have no delusions about this happening in my life time or anywhere near it, but I simply hope that, some day, there won't be any more areas of culturally permited and expected cognitive dissonance.
Says who? You? I know I sure don't, and neither do most religious people.
Well, unless by "exactly what it is" you mean the whole "all religious people are mentally deficient" thing. Because yeah, we're gonna call you dicks if you do that. But if you can't find a way to condemn the Westboro Baptist Church or Islamic suicide bombers without going there, that's your fucking problem, not mine.
Edit: I mean, let's get this straight. Your argument is that some religions suck and, because of this, anyone who is religious sucks and it's their fault that there are crappy religions.
Jesus Christ, Quid.
Alright. There are consequences to beliefs, right? If I acost you about your spiritual beliefs, the expectation is that we can come to no conclusion because there is no conclusion to come to. This is wrong, but this is what our culture accepts and expects, so this is what happens. You personally are not necessarily hurting anybody, but that you can essentially throw in the towel and say, "Well, that's just what I believe," is the inherent problem of religions. This insulates the fanatics from anything but the least practical of reactionary policies towards their behavior.
Let me put it this way: if somebody's deism drives them to drive a bus through a mall, mowing down dozens of people, and blowing it with a pipe bomb killing dozens more, we're not allowed to say they did this because of their deism even if that's the only explanation they leave available. They did it because they were fucked up, right? That's all.
So why is it that we can safely assume that every suicide bomber in the big desert is going to be devoutly religious?
I got really tired of people bitching about "militant" atheists and wanted to make a case.
Clearly to demonstrate not all religious people are crazy dicks I should scream at atheists my belief in their probably being a god maybe.
It's gone a different direction than I intended, but am I really being a dick by demanding a higher standard of beliefs on a damned debate forum?
Make a thread about how Christianity, especially as it is practiced today, is fucking dumb. Then we'll have something to talk about. As it is this is pointless.
This is a fact that everyone in this debate would do well to remember (not to point fingers). I simply cannot make myself believe in the supernatural doctorine and laws that religion offers. It flies in the face of logic and falsifiability. I am not saying that in a universe of infinity, the possibility of a "deity" of some kind is impossible, but so far, that fact is not proven so I will wait for proof. Books written about such things do not constitute truth or fact. To me they are fiction. But to say to me that God exists because we can't prove he doesn't is asinine and anyone with any sense can see why.
My main beef with religion is that you must lay aside at least some rational skepticism in order to embrace the tenets of any religious belief system. This lack of skepticism carries over into matters which really have nothing at all do with a particular religion, like say, the running of a government. Within your own religious community you are free to censor your own, but your beliefs and the propensity to push these beliefs (often times violently) is unjustifiable and evil.
Isn't that just a wee bit patronizing? After all, devout Christians believe that not only is Christ's message directed at them but it's directed at everyone in the whole world, too. How are they supposed to act as if everyone else's beliefs (for instance, that Jesus is not savior) are valid for each person that believes it?
There can only be one truth.
This is the problem I have with the culture of religious tolerance and wishy-washy PC stuff. It's inherently patronizing.
This is an interesting enough insight that I might, indeed, make my own thread about it. Stay tuned.
That is one of the many problems with that brand of Christianity yes.
Thing is you can't say that is also true of every religion so you don't get to use that argument against them all. Hence an example in why arguing against them all is pointless.
I really wish everyone would stop assuming every religious belief = convert people to Jesus or die!
No no no no no no no. "Moderates" are culpable because they provide the room for interpretation in their attempt to cede to secular society. If a moderate can interpret or ignore passages about stoning nonbelievers to death but still adhere to tenets about love and somesuch stuff, then a fanatic can get away with being correct when they take those stoning passages literally. That's the problem. The moderates don't hold fanatics up to a standard of rigorous examination because otherwise they'd be apostates themselves.
Daaaaaamn. They really are working "off the book" as it were. Why even bother calling yourself Christian at that point?
Crazy.
Edit: Well... I guess they could be using the corrupted Greek root for Christos (Savior) from which Christians take their name. So they aren't really followers of the teachings of one Yeshua of Nazerith but rather of a generic "Savior" figure who has nothing to do with the New Testament.
Then you could sort of call them Christians yes.
Map comparing Abrahamic religions to the Dharmic and Taoic religions.
I don't care that there are tiny little religions that don't necessarily make unverifiable universal claims. They're not very common. What we have here, evinced by this map, is a very serious problem.
Not really. That's a pretty basic idea presented in many parts of the Christian bible. It may be contradicted at points, but it's by far the most common feature. Believe in God/Jesus or go to hell. End of story.
2. So, what, now we just don't count Eastern religions in the word religion?
All a moderate can really say without calling their own faith into question is that a fanatic's interpretation is wrong, and that's a dead end because there is no wrong interpretation of religion by its very nature.
No I meant the people he referred to that said salvation is for everyone regardless are the ones not reading their own damn book.
If you're making claims about universal reality (as religions necessarily do) you best as fuck be using verifiable claims. That's been my point from the start.
You keep trying to fit "religion" under one specific group of ideas that have to apply to all of them. Stop.
So pick a group, or preferably a single subgroup, and make a thread about that specifically. Because as long as you are trying to make claims about "religion" as a whole all Quid has to do (and he is perfectly correct here) is find a single example of a religion to whom your objection does not apply.
Ah, yeah, that's true.
Religions that make universal claims about reality.
For the record, these are the religions that the vast majority of people believe in.
Also, quite a few Taoists believe in ancestral spirits. There's another one of those unjustifiable claims that's getting schools bombed.
You keep creating these hypotheticals. I'd challenge you to find one for each of the billions of people that have been harmed in the name of religion.
It's a pretty prominent feature in the majority of religions. I feel safe in generalising.
In the example you've cited, the act of hand-touching was not itself immoral, though it had grave social implications. The man was not necessarily wrong, though a bit presumptive. He would have been morally wrong had he known about the custom and still chose to touch the villager's hands because of the emotional duress caused by a person purposefully violating one's sacred custom or what have you . Anyway, this is an example of a cultural norm making significant an action which would otherwise be morally insignificant. This is the only sense in which moral relativism holds any water.
If that same village had the custom that all visitors to the village had to violently rape a female prisoner or themselves face execution, that custom is still morally wrong regardless of the local beliefs.
I mean... Many many of the religions today are offshoots from the same thing, devoted to the same main text. For the most part, their values are similar, they follow the same rules/commandments, and should by all rights get along fine. But every little difference in the way they've chosen to follow these beliefs are magnified until they're totally different and at times at war with each other.
Maybe I'm being naive, but given the tenants of the original text they all believe is the word of God, shouldn't there be alot more unifying of belief and less division?
We cannot know to what extent that's true. However, care to grab some statistics on religiosity and violence?